July 4, 2007

Says Oliver Stone, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declined to become the subject of a Stone documentary. Stone got the bad news: he "is considered part of the opposition in the U.S., but opposition in the U.S. is a part of the Great Satan.” Aw, poor Stone! How much do you have to hate the United States to get Ahmadinejad to like you? Much more than Stone thought, apparently.

ADDED: "[O]pposition in the U.S. is a part of the Great Satan.” A nice free speech point for Independence Day, no?

IN THE COMMENTS: Some good left-vs.-right back and forth. As expected, I'm questioned on the implication that Stone "hates" America. Best response, from Cedarford: "Ahmahinejad just gave a healthy reminder... that no matter how much the Left fights for terrorist's precious civil rights and seek[s] to undermine and demoralize the US military, at the end of the day, Lefties are part of the enemy."

MORE IN THE COMMENTS: Cyrus asks: "Are you suggesting that Oliver Stone hates the United States?"

I answer:

I think he hates what it is to some degree, but that in his own view, he probably feels he loves it more than people who merely love it as it is. My suggestion is mainly that it is not possible for him to hate it enough to win favor with Ahmadinejad. And it's pretty cool that Ahmadinejad's spokesman put it in a way that made clear what many or most Americans think: that the critics of America are an integral part of what America is.

Ahmahinejad just gave a healthy reminder to Feder, hdhouse and the like that no matter how much the Left fights for terrorist's precious civil rights and seek to undermine and demoralize the US military, at the end of the day, Lefties are part of the enemy.

Lefty's defense of radical Islam as partners in the struggle against evil America and the West wins them little gratitude. Because to most Muslims, it is the Left that shovels out the purient filth, the Left that is full of the Transnational Jews, Communists, godless infidels that need destroying. More conservative, believing People of the Book deserve more mercy, in the radical Muslim mind, an offer of dhimmitude, if possible. But wherever radical Islamists have taken over or run serious internal terrorism in Muslim states, their 1st targets are fellow Muslims on the Left.

"the left", which right now is associated with a majority "hates America?". Really? News to me. News to a majority of Americans I am sure.

The linkage remains insulting. The snarkiness of the rightwing storm troopers is laughable. You should thank your lucky stars that the majority (us) permits the minority (you) to live in freedom for if the shoe were on the other foot (you in the majority) sadly enough you dishonor this country enough to rail against its basic freedoms....that on this day we celebrate...although I have expect that you are off to an impromtu bund meeting.

Did Stone see that recent news photo? The one of the Iranian man being marched through the streets? Grimacing as he's forced to drink from a pitcher? The kind that people there use to wash their backsides after they go the bathroom?

His crime? Having hair too long?

Stone has long hair, smokes pot, and sports unfashionable views. If he were an Iranian, he'd be dead. Or worse.

hdhouse - you're pretty funny today. Every think of trying out for last comic standing?

The 'majority' permits nothing. What is celebrated today is freedom granted by the Constitution and guaranteed by the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day so all of us can say whatever we want - no matter how clueless it may be.

You should thank your lucky stars that the majority (us) permits the minority (you) to live in freedom for if the shoe were on the other foot (you in the majority) sadly enough you dishonor this country enough to rail against its basic freedoms

Hah, I love it. So Orwellian. You have to read between the fine print to find out the freedoms that the left cherishs, such as freedom to have free health care. The freedom to live economically equal to all others. The freedom to not have to worry about food or shelter regardless of what path you choose in life.

"although I have [sic] expect that you are off to an impromtu bund meeting...."

I am off to a nice little café in my lefty outpost in the midwest. Where they have walls and walls of wine, all in bottles, and even a wall of Scotch of every sort. But I've got a big latte and I'm not having a meeting. Just reading and typing... as usual... trying to drive you guys nuts.

Didn't Mahmoud see Oliver’s “Natural Born Jihadists”? Stone is a natural born ally-- he even went Looking for Fidel before Michael Moore thought of it sickly.

He'll probably do a Texass grassy knoll sequel featuring our "inept, rigid ideologue" GWB one day, too. The Iranian Prez is a fool. There's Great Satan, and then there are rival devilish minions who could be so useful to Allah...

hdhouse: Great mounthpiece for the mindless "Bush lied" crowd! If that's the majority, the rest are damned lucky for our system of limited government -- a badly needed regime to prevent majority tyranny. But I digress (and exaggerate) -- there's no left majority, actually. Just a bunch of America-bashing dead-enders ready to retreat from history's calling.

Cyrus asks: "Are you suggesting that Oliver Stone hates the United States?"

I think he hates what it is to some degree, but that in his own view, he probably feels he loves it more than people who merely love it as it is. My suggestion is mainly that it is not possible for him to hate it enough to win favor with Ahmadinejad. And it's pretty cool that Ahmadinejad's spokesman put it in a way that made clear what many or most Americans think: that the critics of America are an integral part of what America is.

In fairness to Stone, he is a first rate director when he can shake his moonbat, conspiratorial nonsense.

He did that with World Trade Center. No agenda, no homage to the Far Left fever swamps of hysterical claims the Mossad or CIA rigged the Towers with explosives. Just a top notch movie.

I hope Stone "got" the message. You and others on the Left may hate Bush and oppose Iraq, but you are still non-Muslim infidels we correct religious believers in Allah have a sacred duty to conquer or destroy one day.

Stone's beef is really that he is part of a country that elected GWB. You know if we could just get rid of the idiots and become the utopia he imagines, everything would be fine. Whats sad is that people like him are just tools and they think they are so smart. What a waste of talent.

That rascal, Oliver Stone: pulling victory out of defeat by pointing out the moral equivalency of our leader & the Iranians’. No wonder he’s such a great director. He is, isn’t he?

Wait ‘til Ahmadinejad understands the full import of who he’s dealing with. He’ll be shaking in his robes.

Next: Michael Moore will, with members of Code Pink in tow, via bullhorn from a boat, try to have Ahmadinejad explain why stockpiling nuclear stuff makes for cheaper medical costs & better medical care than that of the U. S.

The Iranians will not try to capture Moore’s boat because they know no one would pay ransom for him. Moore will blame it all on the U. S. Navy & print some stock flattering film of Ahmadinejad alongside pictures of a big fat (albeit thinner than Moore himself) U. S. Admiral smoking a cigar, which will be widely distributed & critically-hailed.

True, and the position of "critics of America" shifts with who's in power, despite what the more self-righteous of the right-wing commenters on this thread want to believe. The Fourth of July is not a dark day for the left. And when lefties are arguing for civil liberties, we're doing so with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." in mind. Not rights endowed by the Constitution, or by being born on the right patch of land, but by virtue of simply being alive.

I'd love to see Democrats "undermine and demoralize" the U.S. troops even more than they have with their consistent support for pro-troop legislation. I'm not sure, though, how they're going to surpass their A and B ratings in pro-troop legislation votes over the past 5 years, according to a survey done by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America in late 2006. You have scroll down to the Cs, Ds and Fs before you see any GOP legislators. But no matter how much the GOP wants to pull money and strategic support out from under our troops--gotta cut those taxes somehow!--they're still an integral part of America and welcome to belly up to the grill for a piece of my Freedom Chicken.

Check out this lovely post at The Progressive to see how the left is urged to celebrate July 4th and then judge whether they hate America or not.

http://www.progressive.org/media_mpzinn070106

Of course they hate America in that they hate America the way it is now and want to change it into something they can love - like Cuba or Venezuela or perhaps Iran.

The left has always believed that their hatred of America puts them in good with our enemies. Unfortunately, they are simply useful idiots doing their work for them and would be quickly disposed of should they ever take charge.

You say you hope Stone "got" the message that his "hate Bush" will not spare him from their non-tender mercies should they conquer us.

Doubt it. Think you answered yourself in your great, pithy on-point submission of 12:20. Why else would Ol’ Oliver be so interested in scoring points against Bush after taking one on the chin from Ahmadinejad? Seems to me that Oliver in his moral equivalence morass thinks that he’d just get the same treatment – lack of understanding - from these folks as his leader as he gets from Bush/Hitler/Halliburton/ BigOil/BigPharma. Oh did I forget to mention that besides hating intellectuals like Stone, Bush hates women, kids & gays?

I'm not sure why the right is so set on the idea that those of us on the left hate the United States.

Frankly, if I hated the United States, I'd support George W. Bush, because he has done more to damage the United States in every way possible-- economically, militarily, in terms of loss of liberty, and in our relation to the rest of the world than any President I can remember.

As far as Mr. Ahmadinejad is concerned, I'd suggest that he doesn't speak for most Iranians. The mullahs who really run things had to disqualify hundreds of reformist candidates from the ballot the year he was elected just to get him elected as President, and I look to the next generation of Iranians to someday be the generation that leads Iran out from under the dominion of the mullahs, one way or another.

The next generation are the under 30 Iranians, who have no memory of the Shah or the revolution, and who resent living under an Islamic society. They are now a majority of the population, and their leaders are people like the students at Tehran University who burned pictures of Ahmadinejad in order to protest his Holocaust Denial Conference.

Let's remember that Iranians are Persians, not Arabs (an important distinction because they have a distinct mistrust of Arab organizations like al-Qaeda), and while the older generation may have had some issues with the U.S. because of our support of the Shah and other issues, the younger generation (despite the best attempts using the tired old rhetoric of Ayatollah Khomeini, as you see here) does not look at America with particular hostility. They may not be our friends, but unless we do something to radicalize them (like invading Iran) they are also not necessarily our enemies.

I believe that as that generation grows older, more numerous and more politically powerful Iranian society itself will be transformed, and it is in this generation that we should be looking for opportunity (not from Ahmadinejad or anyone else from the revolutionary generation.)

"We received a letter from the Writers' War Board the other day asking for a statement on "The Meaning of Democracy." It presumably is our duty to comply with such a request, and it is certainly our pleasure.

"Surely the Board knows what democracy is. It is the line that forms on the right. It is the don’t in don’t shove. It is the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the sawdust trickles; it is the dent in the high hat. Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. It is the feeling of privacy in voting booths, the feeling of communion in libraries, the feeling of vitality everywhere. Democracy is a letter to the editor. Democracy is the score at the beginning of the ninth. It is an idea which hasn’t been disproved yet, a song the words of which have not gone bad. It’s the mustard on the hot dog and the cream in the rationed coffee. Democracy is a request from the War Board, in the middle of a morning in the middle of a war, wanting to know what democracy is."

DemocracyE.B. White

Amusingly, this essay is quoted at this website and also at this one, too.

What I got out of the Stone Iran piece was that Iran doesn't make a huge distinction between various US governments, they are all Satans. Remember Carter could not get any respect from them, but Reagan got the hostages back immediately. What I see is that if we had an Obama or a Dean has President in 08, and pulled all our troops out of the ME, it would not make any difference from Iran's perspective. The Great Satan is the target regardless.

Just like the fact that whenever communists took over a country, the first folks stood up against the wall were the social democrats, if Islamics ever took over the US, hdhouse, steve, Feder and Downtownlad would be there trying to make friends before they were lined up and shot (straights) and stoned (gays).

Beth on the other hand may be a lefty, but when they came for her, I bet she and me would be holed up like Butch and Sundance counting our bullets. I don't think she would go quietly into the night... Not until all her 9mm ammo was gone anyway :)

There are patriotic lefty Americans and then there are the other kind. The Iranians don't make a distinction.

I think we, on the right, should make a better effort in discerning there are differences between "Nationalized Health Care is a good idea and the Iraq War isn't" Democrats and "Capitalism is bad, the Sandinistas were heroes, and Iraq was better off under Saddam" Leftists. And Democrats should forthrightly recognize that their fringe is as whacked out scary as the abortion bomber, 6000 year Earth crowd is on the right.

Let's face it, do ya'll really want to claim Oliver Stone? Deep down, wouldn't you guys rather look at the Michael Moore's, the Oliver Stone's and the Noam Chomsky's and say "Hey, we think he's as nuts as you do"?

And we on the right shouldn't reflexively assume that everyone we speak to who is to the left of us is automatically hankering to bring the Hammer and Sickle to the Potomac.

It is obivous that liberals hate america. Hollyweird, homosexuals and femnazis are generally haters of American and Oliver Stone's comments are proof of this.

If it wasn't for conservatives and George Bush women would now be wearing burkas in this country and gays would be hanging from trees.

Unfortunately, these minorities do not see this and their safety is at risk because they are coddling the terrorists.

Conservatives love america and love this president because he has kept us safe and fighting the terrorists over here rather than on the streets of America.

Imagine how the homosexuals and femnazis would feel if the terrorists would disrupt their parades in San Francisco and New York? Liberals should be down on their knees thanking the president for all he has done to keep us safe. Instead, people question him and hate him for keeping us on the offense.

Hating America is a liberal trait while loving America is a conservative trait. It is plain and simple.

I for one wish Bush could remain our president because the past 6 years have been a blessing and we are safe to walk our streets. With the next election coming up I am concerned that the defeatocrats will win and as a result the country will be decimated.

Drill Sgt.: it's a 38, but you've got the picture right. A 9mm is in the offing when I have a little discretionary income.

Meanwhile, my daily world doesn't include worrying too much about any jackboots at the door. I have cordial, even friendly, relationship with the Catholic anti-abortion activist across the street, the many Muslim students in my classes and on my campus, the very few of my leftist friends who confuse nationalism with patriotism, and so on.

Also, here in New Orleans, the whole spectrum has grown suspicious of government in all flavors. We've learned that the rain falls on us all, left and right.

Rebel has to be a highly practiced performance artist from the ironic left, yes?

Also, Peter Hoh: thanks for reminding us of the irrational end of the right spectrum. D'Souza says Islam hates our cultural liberalism, and so do U.S. conservatives, and suggests that's a match made in Heaven.

Finally, I've disliked Oliver Stone since "JFK"--he's stunningly talented on the production side, and can tell a story better than most directors living and dead. But he's a hack who doesn't care who he lies about or who he lionizes in the process. People in New Orleans know that Jim Garrison, the source of Stone's perspective for that film, was a dangerously unbalanced man with enough power to bring ruin down on the heads of good people. Clay Shaw had the misfortune of being vulnerable to Garrison's unhinged persecution because he was queer in a time that having that revealed meant the end of one's business and social status. Garrison ruined the life of a good man, and Stone bought it hook, line and sinker. He's a talented fool.

Well Beth, I have no doubts about you and NOLA is still the south. I suspect the most of the Southern lefties still have that ingrained patriotic gene in their blood.

I don't think that anybody in jack boots or a keffiyeh is coming for either of us. Just pointing out that some lefties think that those who want to destroy America are automaticly on the side of progressives.

Drill Sgt., I've set aside a couple of pieces of my peach BBQ chicken for you (unless you want the dill and caper salmon?) It's been smoked over cherry chips, a little July 4th tip of the hat to the first George W.

It's not like his first reaction to seeing thousands of his fellow citizens mass-murdered was to call the 9/11 attack "a revolt," and the Palestinians who were celebrating 9/11 best compared with the way "people had responded after the revolutions in France and Russia."

It's not like he looked at the 9/11 attack and his initial gut reaction was to believe it was committed by "misunderstood" people who only "seem" like frightening madmen to us, while more with-it intelelctuals like himself believe these misunderstood terrorists want to bring about "great changes" like "Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Gates."

It's not like he looked at the atrocity committed upon his fellow citizens and thought, "The Arabs have a point!" and are going going "to be joined by the people who objected in Seattle."

Someone saying that sort of crap (LINKED HERE; scroll down) in the immediate wake of the 9/11 atrocity woudln't exactly be someone I think is in love with America. But I dunno - maybe he snorted too much cocaine that day.

But at least he has some bad words to say about Ahmahinejad, though making sure to note he's not yet proven to be as terrible at Bush. So I don't think the President of Iran has earned his admiration yet the way a dictator like Castro did. But then Castro met with him for hours and flattered him. Maybe that's all Stone wants - a bit of love from the dictators of the world who are fighting the New World Order, global capitalism, and the world's democracies, all of which he shares their contempt for.

But I guess he has a little more sense than other mainstream "progressives" in the media, such as Rosie O'Donnell (who hasn't even figured out he did 9/11 yet, and seems to have a soft spot for the Iranian regime) or the significant minority of Kos Kid commenters I saw expressing admiration for the President of Iran just after he did an interview for American TV.

None of these people hate America. They just hope all the enemies of America defeat us so America as we know it is finally gotten rid of. Cuz that would be so awesomely "progressive" for the world. So, I guess I'll get my head out of my ass and salute the brilliant "progressive movement" this 4th of July, and remember that it's "only fair" that Ahmahinejad gets to have nukes, too, as progressives tell me whenever I ask.

Drill Sgt.: it's a 38, but you've got the picture right. A 9mm is in the offing when I have a little discretionary income.

I understand you may want something in your purse, but for standing on the front porch fending off "gatherers and sharers" during the next flood, I recommend a pump shotgun. 12 gauge if you can handle it, 16 gauge if you can't. I bet a southern girl like you has fired one before and nothing says, "don't even think about it" like racking back a pump, even if it is empty. Nobody will ever call that bluff.

I have no reason to believe that Oliver Stone "hates" America (or aspects of America) any more than you do. I suggest you cut your losses and admit that you have no factual basis for claiming that Stone hates America.

NSC, I read the article in the Progressive, and wow! They are socialists who hate captialism, so they have to wish for the end of America as we know it, because America is so darn capitalistic and succesful.

Yeah, those people hate America, they hate capitalism, they hate private ownership of land, they hate parts of our constitution, they really hate Christianity, and white men are all pretty suspect.

I do not know where Stone fits into that, I imagine that his ego deflects him from really hating America. He just knows how much better it would be if her were the great American dictator.

And funny thing is, the Islamic terrorists would have more in common with us Christians than with you lefties! And face it, we pray for you, they pray for the chance to kill you. I know we are annoying, but we are safe, the vast majority of us are non-violent, and while some of us would vote to end abortion and gay marriage, we would never kill you. Never.

Elizabeth, you are not a leftie, you are a Democrat. Democrats are fine people. I disagree with much of their politics, but I trust them more than the centrist Republicans who love only power and money. God bless you this 4th.

Beth: If this is really true:You have scroll down to the Cs, Ds and Fs before you see any GOP legislators.

then you and I both know that the outfit doing the rating is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party. A ranking like that is complete bullshit. I am sorry to see you stooping to pretending it is legitimate.

The cant about the US being majority left was partly based on the low approval ratings for GWB. Considering the congress has LOWER approval ratings than GWB should put the lie to that myth. The Republican led congress had polled higher. Means another sea change is in the offing, eh?

paul a'barge: Q: How much do you have to hate the United States to get Ahmadinejad to like you? A: Hugo Chavez

And what the useful idiots on the left fail to recognize is that they'll saw Chavez's head off just as soon as anyone else. He'll be granted no dispensation, regardless of how much he hates America, because he's still an infidel.

I doubt that, but it sure sounds as if you've gone around the bend and have taken delivery of custom-fit brownshirts for yourself. Your recent abandonment of reason and oft-repeated intense desire for retribution of the basest kind is frightening to behold. As a result. you are unlikely to personally hold political power of any kind anyone anytime soon, and that is a very good thing indeed.

[Stone's] disdain for the current political climate in the US, dislike of the current president or disapproval of our current policies translates into "hate America".

Right, because before the Bush Administration came to power, Oliver Stone and the left were just in dreamy love with this country.

Let's see: the Left (broad brush strokes, now) has been saying for decades that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, unjust country that exploits the Third World and engages in imperial aggression abroad.

But don't get the idea that they hate the country, no.

Is there racism in America? Unfortuntely, yes.

Is there other forms of discrimination in America? Sadly yes.

But is American a thoroughly unjust country?

If you say yes, how can one conclude that you don't hate such a nation?

"A publicity representative in New York said Mr. Stone had not been formally notified of the rejection, but he released a statement saying: “I have been called a lot of things, but never a great satan.""

He's never been called a great satan? Where the hell was he throughout the mid-to-late 70s?

Or did he think that the Iranians weren't talking about him when they were calling all of America "the great satan" during the Carter Presidency?

I think he hates what it is to some degree, but that in his own view, he probably feels he loves it more than people who merely love it as it is.

While I don't pay much attention to what Oliver Stone says or does, what I have read or heard about his thoughts, such as the one mentioned here, indicate to me that he often takes issue with what our government does (or doesn't do). I think there is a substantial difference between hating (disliking) what our government does and what our nation is. (Noam Chomsky is probably a better example of someone who hates what our nation is. AFAIK, he has also declined every opportunity provided to say that he loves, or even likes, his country.)

With the distinction between "is" and "does" and government and nation in mind, I certainly believe that Oliver Stone loves his country, that his criticism of the government is based on a desire to change it for the better (as he sees betterment). Your point that that makes him unacceptable to Ahmadinejad is well taken.

And it's pretty cool that Ahmadinejad's spokesman put it in a way that made clear what many or most Americans think: that the critics of America are an integral part of what America is.

Yes, it is - cool and an integral part. Anyone perusing some of the threads here in recent weeks can see proof of that.

Sometime during the Vietnam War protests, the lefty definition of patriotism turned topsy turvy. They came to believe so much that criticism of America was patriotic that now they believe only criticism of America can be patriotic. In their perverse, black and white, upside down world, treason is patriotism and patriotism is treason.

You should thank your lucky stars that the majority (us) permits the minority (you) to live in freedom

Wingnuts always think they're the majority. They can't understand why they don't win elections. No one permits me to live in freedom. I insist on doing so anyway. Good luck stopping me. Remind me again, which side of the political divide has most all of the guns and ammo? Rad-Lefties gonna knock me out with bong smoke? Heh. LOVE that Second Amendment!

although I have expect that you are off to an impromtu bund meeting

Ah, Nazi insults, last refuge of the mindless rad-leftie! Actually the family and I went out to an afternoon BBQ with some friends in the 184th Security Forces Sqdn, a few months back from Kirkuk. Oh, I forgot, to mindless rad-lefties the military IS "the Bund."

And folks who would die to KEEP folks like you from being lined up against that wall and shot, even though we think you're terribly misguided, well, we're the REAL enemy.

Frankly, if I hated the United States, I'd support George W. Bush, because he has done more to damage the United States in every way possible-- economically, militarily, in terms of loss of liberty, and in our relation to the rest of the world than any President I can remember.

You bet. A long, robust period of economic growth, the evolution of a military well-suited for fighting and winning wars against terrorism and the absence of any new, successful attacks on US soil.

I'm trying to decide which comment is more preposterous - Rebel's claim that "[i]f it wasn't for conservatives and George Bush women would now be wearing burkas in this country and gays would be hanging from trees" or Eli's "George W. Bush ... has done more to damage the United States in every way possible ... than any President I can remember." I'm going to have to go with Eli's, since Rebel's comment at least cloaks itself in speculation, while Eli simply misrepresentats verifiable reality. But it's a photo finish.

I think there is some truth the comment that the left hates America. They don't necessarily hate America the idea, they hate America in general as it is and as it has been. They want a different America, one that perhaps favors equality over freedom.

However, there is nothing new about substantial minorites of a society hating its current culture. It is a common thread through out history. Sometimes we side with the minority - i.e. the Germans who wanted to abandon statism in the 19th and 20th century and the liberals we see today in the middle east.

Sloan - to discuss whether one hates "America" one must first have a shared understanding of what "America" is. I'd posit that liberals love what they understand to be "America," and have nothing but contempt for what conservatives understand to be "America." That might explain the duality.

On July 2, 2007, the Iranian news agency Mehr, reported that Michael Moore will be invited to Iran by the Documentary and Experimental Film Center for a screening of his new film "Sicko" at an Iranian festival for documentary films called Reality Cinema. The festival is set to take place in Tehran from October 15-19.

I might suggest then that you also differentiate, in this case between Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.

True, both are openly far to the left. And true both of them have an 'in-your-face' style.

However, Stone's films, especially JFK and Nixon, have been riddled with inaccuracies, speculation and even outright lies. Moore in contrast checks and double checks his facts (for example, he put out there a $10,000 reward for any factual inaccuracy in Fahrenheit 9/11, which only one was ever found, and that was a newspaper headline inadvertently given the wrong date which had minimal effect on the movie as a whole.)

I know you don't like either of them, but there is a qualitative difference between making a far left production (as everyone knows it will be when they buy a ticket to see such a movie) and telling things that are true, vs. making them up.

And the box office bears that out too-- it's too early to know about Sicko but Moore has done progressively better every time at the box office (for example Fahrenheit 9/11 was the first $100 million documentary) while Stone hasn't had a hit since-- when? Born on the fourth of July? And even then, he only got an audience because he had Tom Cruise.

In lumping Moore and Stone together, you suggest that facts and accuracy are irrelevant. As a consumer of Left-leaning movies I can assure you that facts do matter. I plan to see Sicko, but if I want to spend my money on fiction then I'd rather save it for the new Harry Potter movie than Stone.

I'm trying to decide which comment is more preposterous - Rebel's claim that "[i]f it wasn't for conservatives and George Bush women would now be wearing burkas in this country and gays would be hanging from trees" or Eli's "George W. Bush ... has done more to damage the United States in every way possible ... than any President I can remember."

Oh. My mistake. Stone did OK on Natural Born Killers. In 1994. Not a documentary, and a film which Quentin Tarantino was so unhappy with Stone's revisions that he asked him to remove his name from the credits (although it remained under 'story by' anyway.)

Moore is fundamentally dishonest. You can see that in Sicko. Even if the facts portrayed in Sicko are completely, 100% true (a dubious claim), it's a dishonest film because of what it doesn't show.

If your only criterion for accuracy is that a movie show facts--no matter how those facts are edited or portrayed, as in F9/11's portrayal of Bush reading to a class of kids--then certainly Leni Riefenstahl should be praised for Triumph of the Will, since what she showed was actual "true" footage, she just neglected to show the death camps.

Stone, at least, is crafting fiction. It may be bad fiction in terms of how it portrays reality, but...uh, oh, hell, I dunno. I can't stand either of 'em.

then you and I both know that the outfit doing the rating is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party.

Ronin, I'm sorry to see you assuming that without bothering to research the group. I haven't found anything from them taking a position on the way, only on issues relating to the troops health and welfare are returning, and their needs being met while deployed.

Drill Sgt.--grill the salmon to your preferred doneness. Meanwhile, in a little saucepan, heat some butter with capers, and have dill and lemon waiting. When the butter is browned, squeeze in the lemon and add the dill, and pour it while it's hot over the salmon. Yum. It's sort of a meuniere sauce, with browned butter and an acid (lemon and capers). Toss in a little cayenne for real fun.

Sloan - to discuss whether one hates "America" one must first have a shared understanding of what "America" is. I'd posit that liberals love what they understand to be "America," and have nothing but contempt for what conservatives understand to be "America." That might explain the duality. 8:38 PM

Bingo. Get rid of the 2nd amendment, capitalism, and the electoral college; turn the protection of the free world over to the corrupt UN; and figure out a way to re-energize the labor unions so they can do for the rest of the economy what they've done for the auto industry and public schools.

Hey, I voted for Mondale, Dukakis--or was it Ron Paul?, Normal Perot, Crazy Perot (or Browne?), Browne and Badnarik. In fact, I've never voted for a candidate for any major office who's won, excepting Schwarzenegger. (As I said, I voted for Arnold for the entertainment value and he's sort of been a let down.)

I'm not sure I'd be crazy about any of the candidates I voted, had they won, but I refuse to vote for the lesser of two...lessers.

Beth, common sense says that there must be ONE Republican above a C. Think about it for a while, Beth. Not even ONE Republican in Congress gets a B?????? Not even John McCain, to name one? Not even Olympia Snowe? Give me a break. It defies logic, Beth. The results reported by you are all the proof I need that there is some highly selective screening of so-called "issues" going on in order to make damned sure that not one Republican gets above a C. I'm not even a Republican supporter and even I'm offended by such hooey.

If I wasn't, and I didn't have a high opinion of you (and your ability to spot bullshit), I wouldn't have said anything.

Drill Sgt., if you think of it sometime, email me about grilling and smoking. I am working on getting proficient at smoking, so any tips would be appreciated. I want to slow smoke some fish at a very low temperature sometime this summer, salmon or rainbow trout maybe.

Ronin, look first at what I'm responding to, Cedarford's inane accusation. Then, go ahead and check out the group yourself. I'll accept your read, that there's some bias in their rating, or more likely in their prioritizing of what issues they choose for rating. But really, it's not that off. The GOP has consistently put more money into the big ticket items, the expensive hardware, rather than troop-centric needs. And did you somehow miss the Walter Reed stories out last year? That happened on W's watch, and with a GOP-majority congress. Where was McCain while that was going on? McCain's image isn't what it used to be. And Snowe was one of the higher-rated GOP members on IAVA list.

Sure Sicko doesn't show the other side of things. No more than Rush tells the other side of things on his radio show (in fact, one could reasonably argue that a Michael Moore and a Rush Limbaugh somewhat cancel each other out, even if the medium is different-- in fact I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone make that argument yet seeing as how bringing back the 'fairness doctrine' is being discussed.) Your argument that Moore doesn't say some things is true-- and irrelevant.

I blogged at some length on this on another 'centrist' blog (i.e. populated by partisans of both sides) where I have earned posting privileges:

And did you love your freedom and your President when it was Bill Clinton?

Dang, I should link to your and Darren's comments to make my point about how hate is alive and well in this country (and it ain't us on the left, either. FYI, the reason I don't support Bush is because it pains me greatly as an American to see the damage he has done to our country. To cite only one example, he inherited the strongest military machine in the history of the planet and he has managed to squander it fighting a guerilla war that will drag on endlessly, and only empowers countries like China and North Korea and Iran who know darn well that we no longer pose the military threat to them that we did five years ago.

And in the process we've seen the secret surveillance of citizens, the indefinite detentions without charge even of an American citizen arrested in the United States, the legalized torture, the secret detention centers with secret tribunals which can (and for anything we know, already have) order the death penalty with no appeal.

And it is painful to see that there are still some who are so ignorant that they don't realize the betrayal of America and how much more like Stalinist Russia it has become. Well, all I have to say is keep in mind that all these new powers that the executive branch has been granted will make the next President far stronger upon entering office than his or her predecessors. Better hope it is someone who you trust not to abuse them, right?

OK, Beth, when I have time I will. I avoid reading almost everything Cedarford writes because of his oft-repeated anti-Semitic and racist remarks. I was responding only to the idea that none of the 250 Republicans in Congress merited more than a "C."

Whenever I have checked the details of ratings like this by various organizations, I have almost always (not sometimes) discovered that they cherry-picked the congressional votes used for their scorecard. A member of Congress could vote the way they want 90% of the time, but if it wasn't their way in 9 of the 10 "important" votes, that member gets damned. Many times, the contortions are so great to get the desired result that these "important" issues aren't remotely related to the advocacy group's goals, except in the designer's minds. I have found this to be true for both sides of the political spectrum.

I do want to make it clear that I am not saying this group is not doing any good. I imagine that they probably are. All I am saying is that it stands to reason that if A's and B's are being given out, particularly if they are being given out in any number greater than 2, at least 1 out of 250 ought to have managed at least a B. The political parties are simply not so far apart as to make this a statistical probability. (And if Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat with an F, we'll really know that the fix was in ;-)

The fact that the Walter Reed mess was exposed while the GOP was in power should be irrelevant to an individual's ratings. (BTW, the VA hospitals have been a mess for decades and I don't particularly care on whose watch serious attention finally got paid - as long as it gets paid and some real effort goes into fixing the problems and not just applying cosmetic window dressing as we have for decades now.)

Drill Sgt.--grill the salmon to your preferred doneness. Meanwhile, in a little saucepan, heat some butter with capers, and have dill and lemon waiting. When the butter is browned, squeeze in the lemon and add the dill, and pour it while it's hot over the salmon. Yum. It's sort of a meuniere sauce, with browned butter and an acid (lemon and capers). Toss in a little cayenne for real fun.

Why, oh why didn't I read this about an hour ago, when there was some hope that I might cook dinner tonight? (Thanks for the tip, Beth. I'll try it tomorrow.)

Sadly, at the end of the day the main difference between Oliver Stone and Michael Moore is their budget.

And yes, both dislike the American system and want a more European-style government, despite that our system has made us considerably wealthier on a PPP GDP per capita basis.

hdhouse is a perfect example of how unserious leftists generally are; the GOP had the SCOTUS (mostly), the Congress, and the White House for 6 years and civil rights for everyone not trying to blow up the country were fine. The Dems got a narrow Congressional majority and promptly started talking about putting talk radio out of busines.

The majority of the left has always been gullible young and poor people led around by cynical opportunists who promise them "equality" through act of government. They'll saint FDR, who authored some of the largest violations of civil rights in our history, but consider Bush a fascist. There's no real thought behind this, just rationalizations for an agenda.

Seems to me that the same claims were made of Reagan--that he compromised our civil rights. And it seems to me those claims were true, particularly with regard to the "War on Drugs".

But while the Democratic congresses and future President were willing to make hay out of that, they didn't roll back those abuses, they expanded them. This is what ticks me off about Dems: I expect them to defend civil rights, and they don't.

Likewise, the Reps were supposed to be fiscally responsible but I was, I s'pose, too cynical to believe that.

I think you're wrong, by the way, about the "military machine" that Bush 43 inherited. I'm pretty sure it was stronger before Clinton scaled it back. (Which I certainly approved of.)

What I wanted to add was this: The Dems won't protect our civil rights any better this time than they have in the past. It's politically untenable.

When Clinton constructed that "wall" between the intelligence agencies, it could be argued that he facilitated the events of 9/11. I never heard a serious well-researched argument about it, unfortunately, just a lot of finger pointing.

But those are the decisions we have to make: Is the threat of our own government (regardless of who's in power because, bottom line, they're not that much different: Bush 43 and Nixon seem(ed) to operate from a largely Big Government viewpoint) greater than the threat of terrorists?

And we can't discuss it in the abstract any more. We have to look at each piece of legislation and ask ourselves, what are the risks of passing this? What are the risks of not passing it?

Instead, our legislators write terrible (ambiguous, porous) law that they don't even bother to read.

when i read the gross generalizations you and the other neo-rabid-right swine spout on here it is dismissed. Sentences that start wtih "All" or "Lefties - followed immediately with a verb as in 'Lefties hate'" just go nowhere.

Kirk...yes I do actually. My family count was 9 lost to the "storm troopers" so I guess I'd call that experience...would you? I would think that is sufficient but if you mean do I attend their rallys now? No. I don't.

Actually I find myself in rare agreement with Simon who noted that the liberal version of America (admired) and the Current version as expoused by Mr. Bush is the source of disdain. Do I want European Socialism? I doubt we would put up with it but the standard of living and quality of life is vastly superior in a number of countries there...as evidenced by a number of factors, not the least of which is the life expectance, general health, education (literacy to math scores)..and on and on...it would indicate that there is plenty of room for improvement here and instead of the normal GOP tripe of "we are the best da da da" it invites no introspection. That is very sad and intellectually dishonest.

Mostly it is the generalizations that set the liberals off. Liberals hate America is such an evil and Goebbels-ish statement that it draws unnecessary blood, not because it "hits too close to home" which is an extraordinary position to take when your standard bearer is liked by about 25% of the 90% who once admired him, but because it is a cheap, thoughtless, shithead utterance and has no place, here or anywhere.

That is false you idiot. Clinton did no such thing. That "wall" was in effect during the Reagan administration and it isn't a wall. There are ample avenues to share intelligence. What was refined over time was the use of the CIA as part of domestic intelligence. Would you like the CIA office addresses in Atlanta or Philadelphia? New York and LA? Dallas and Denver?...a number of other cities?

One of the most disturbing aspects of the right wing on here is that for a "thought blog" like Ann runs, there are a significant number of morons who merely cut and paste from very very dubious sources or take verbatim from Tush Laimbaugh or Sean Errata.

it demonstrates dishonesty and intellectual sloth. Jury is still out which is the more dangerous of the two.

If you have neighbors, or God forbid relatives, who are Democrats and/or atheists (it can be hard to tell the difference) that are having a BBQ or picnic today this is your chance to show them your Patriotism. Wait until they are good and drunk, don’t worry, they will be, and then march right into the middle of their “celebration” and start reading from the Bible as loud as you can. While you are spreading God’s word to the heathens, have a fellow Patriot simultaneously read from the Declaration of Independence. The Liberals hate the Bible and anything constitutional so this will upset them to no end.

It is reprehensible for Stone to make a moral equilavence between Bush and Ahmadinejad.

* In Iran, their anti-gay pogrom includes Internet entrapment, blackmail, torture and executions* This Islamic Republic's recent “Elevating Society’s Security” Plan uses the police “Disciplinary Forces” to reject modern youth’s way of dressing and behavior, especially among females, which they blame on “the imperialists". In May, 3,000 were arrested, 1,200 automobiles confiscated, and 1,000 shops closed for improper dress. Besides the fines, jail time, and torture, repeat offenders will be deported to rural areas where they’ll have to spend a certain period in exile.

The left is a part of the Democratic party. I cannot guess it's true proportion there, but leftist ideals hold phenomenal sway amongst the intellectuals, and elected officials of the party.

I think Michael Moore hates America. Stone does too, based on his big wet kiss to Castro. Leftists in the 1960s openly and virulently hated America, and this has not been forgotten. It colors how Democrats are viewed, even if unfairly. The left's negative reaction to US flags after 9/11 sent the same message.

To me it's like Muslim society. I keep hearing about the moderate Muslims, but the news is only about terrorism by Muslims. I keep hearing about the patriotic left, but I only see a constant criticism for the US and then some lame assertion that such criticism is patriotism (as in I only hit my wife because I love her so much.)

Instead of even occasionallly reading that the US is among the most free nations in the history of time, where true poverty no longer exists, where there is no secret police hustling political dissidents away, where one can truly choose to believe or not to believe in any religion, instead I read from Zinn the usual litany of US the Great Satan: "renounce nationalism and all its symbolsits flags, its pledges of allegiance ...self-deception ...the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men ...supposedly for benign purposes that our country went towar ...our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines ...they are victims, too, of our government's lies ...We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history."

Yes, Zinn hates America. If I saw the opposite, even a bland patriotic missive, with any frequency, I'd change my mind. Instead, the only sane representatives here are Beth and Madisonman.

What better way to celebrate the fourth of july than call each other traitors and nazis--Whadda country.

On a much more important topic: Salmon. Beth (and any other salmonphiles): IMO Copper River Sockeye is absolutely the best salmon bar none--save that for grilling and if you want a wonderful flavor, grill it on a cedar plank. Soak the plank in water, put the salmon skin side down on it, place plank on a slow fire, and grill until done. Keep a spray bottle around in case the plank ignites.

The farm raised Atlantic salmon is good for smoking--brine it over nite, let it air dry until it forms a coating (pellicle) and smoke it in commercial smoker using apple or alder chips. If you want it hard smoked, you may have to finish it in the oven at about 180.

Steelhead trout, I believe, is actually the best for smoking, but it may be hard to get outside the Pacific NW.

hdhouse said..."People who remember or study history recognize the statements for what they are and what they represent. Just substitute "Jew" for "liberal" and test how it reads."

See, I made a commment along similar lines last night, but thinking it just too far beyond the pale, deleted it. But if you're going to go there, it might as well be said: the language you're describing does frequently occur, but it isn't on the right. Take your average liberal blog. Replace all mentions of Karl Rove and "Neocons" with "Jew" and see what it resembles. For example, consider some comments here: "we must ruthlessly stop the [jews]"; "we are all at war with the [jews]"; "People like Grover Norquist are not paleo-conservatives; they are [jews] who need to be destroyed." Starting to look familiar now?

Mr. House wrote: "...it would indicate that there is plenty of room for improvement here and instead of the normal GOP tripe of "we are the best da da da" it invites no introspection. That is very sad and intellectually dishonest."

There is a danger in acknowledging out accomplishments that we lose sight of our deficits. And introspection is healthy, as is doubting our doubts. I think it is sad, intellectually dishonest, and very dangerouse to not seek to improve what we have and what God gave us.

Steelhead trout, I believe, is actually the best for smoking, but it may be hard to get outside the Pacific NW.

Roger, actually I have pulled steelies out of Lake Michigan and the feeder streams in NW Indiana for years. Honestly don't know if they are indigenous up there but early spring and fall are the best times. Also get some decent Coho and Chinook too which I prefer smoked.

Liberals want us to lose the war on terror again so they can blame Bush."

I think we should be clear that most liberals/mainstream democrats don't want America to be different, they just want to nudge the needle a little.

Leftists on the other hand, don't want to nudge the needle they want America to be different. They want it to be an America in their image; something different than the founders intended it to be. That is what makes them leftists.

The answer is Spanish or King mackerel steaks you catch in the Gulf. Throw them on the grill with a handful of herbs from the garden and, here’s the secret, an accidental garnishing of birdseed from the feeders nearby. Serve to guests from the Right and Left with plenty of 'cross the spectrum spirits.

"Instead of even occasionallly reading that the US is among the most free nations in the history of time, where true poverty no longer exists, where there is no secret police hustling political dissidents away, where one can truly choose to believe or not to believe in any religion, instead I read from Zinn the usual litany of US the Great Satan..."

Indeed, it is this perverted, inverted anti-patriotism that is so disgusting. The mirror image of "America, right or wrong" is "America is always wrong."

Characters like HDHouse want to suck up to collectivism and retain their own individual rights a la ANIMAL FARM, while ignoring the fatal flaws in the Euro nanny state. (such as a higher level of police intervention and a falling birthrate, which makes their little social security blanket unsustainable on actuarial grounds)

Sloanasaurus said... "Liberals ..Leftists .... They want it to be an America in their image; something different than the founders intended it to be. That is what makes them leftists."

You chucklehead. Do you know the definition of "liberal"? Doubtful. You use the word with no concept of its meaning. You think the founding fathers were conservatives? (meaning of course..preserving the status quo)??? Are you nuts? Can you possibly be that ill-informed? Is that level of ignornace possible?

"Characters like HDHouse want to suck up to collectivism and retain their own individual rights a la ANIMAL FARM, while ignoring the fatal flaws in the Euro nanny state. (such as a higher level of police intervention and a falling birthrate, which makes their little social security blanket unsustainable on actuarial grounds)"

Yes, HDHouse, and we know that modern American "liberals" (really social democrats hate the classical liberalism (libertarianism) of the Founders, with its emphasis on individual human freedom and dignity as opposed to collectivist submission to the state.

The left has always believed that their hatred of America puts them in good with our enemies. Unfortunately, they are simply useful idiots doing their work for them and would be quickly disposed of should they ever take charge.Wait a moment - there is that silver lining after all.-nsc

It is obivous that liberals hate america...Hating America is a liberal trait while loving America is a conservative trait. It is plain and simple. -rebel

In their perverse, black and white, upside down world, treason is patriotism and patriotism is treason. -tantor

Ugh, and I'm only halfway down.

It seems that some people are so intent on finding a fifth column that they are willing to create one, just to rally around and hate. Does that help America? You're so pissed off at some abstract position that this is how you spend your Independence Day?

Regarding that last one, tantor's little gem, I'm sure this list would be one quote longer, but last week we lost a commenter when he vowed treason if Gore was elected.

Widespread Coulteresque hyperbolic hatred does more to weaken this country than any dissent you could point at, let alone from someone as inconsequential as Oliver Stone. Did anyone have a picnic ruined? I sure hope not.

Congratulations, Ms. Althouse, on driving us nuts. Keep up the good work. Maybe next week Susan Sarandon will say something unbright. That'll be quite an opportunity. Get some good left-vs.-right back and forth going. "You hate America" v "No, we don't." Can't wait to see the hit counter.

It's just overwhelming. Sorry to be such a pill. I had a great fourth, I hope everyone else did. It's an amazing country and a truly great place, especially if you don't dwell in the ugly places.

Roost on the moon said...."I think it is sad, intellectually dishonest, and very dangerouse to not seek to improve what we have and what God gave us."

Well said - except for the part about God "giving" us anything. Our prosperity (what we have)was and still is not the result of some mystic "gift". Yes,there is definetly room for improvement :-). Trouble is though, the "left" and "right" have TOTALLY different views on how improvement can and should be obtained. Hell, they cant even seem to agree on what should be defined as improvment!

But if you think that makes me sympathetic to your claims, try again. I assumed you were merely throwing the word around for its impact, but it turns out you have first-hand or second-hand experience as to the real implications. This means you are equating those of us who disagree with you in print, with those who sent your relatives to death camps.

This is what ticks me off about Dems: I expect them to defend civil rights, and they don't.

To be honest, I've had that criticism before too.

Clinton was just as bad as a Republican when it came to defending your civil rights, and in fact the 'no-knock' raid at Waco was exactly the kind of thing that people had pointed out as potential abuses of the system when the 'war on drugs' legislation was proposed.

In fact, I'd like to see marijuana legalized (even though I don't use it.) And every year, Barney Frank offers a bill to do so, and he gets about 20 votes for it in Congress-- and virtually all of them come from Democrats.

The assumption with guys like Stone is that they hate the US, and this is often the easy explanation offered for their behavior. I think that US hatred is rarely the motivation with such people at all. Rather, it's that the spouting of anti-US sentiments is currency within the circles where Stone does his business. It's facile and easy, requiring little or no courage. Focusing on an outsider to one's circle as the enemy (Bush, Cheney) greases the social wheels and forges light bonds (not that I'd want to test their strength).

No one who is inclined to attend a Stone movie is going to meet him at a party and toss a drink in his face because of a disagreement with his views. He will be honored, within his preferred peer group, for a 'courage' which costs him nothing. To honor or praise someone like a Stone, among leftists, validates one's own beliefs. At some level, it is self-praise, which is why it is so popular. (This explains much of the behavior on Kos in a nutshell.)

Take another example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens. He continues to stump for the assassination of Salmon Rushdie. How much courage does it take to say this? What sacrifices is Stevens making? No one in the mainstream media is taking him to task for this. No one is burning his CDs. Stevens is Al Gore's buddy, he's featured in the 'Live Earth' concert. He is often praised for his 'courage' in 'standing up for his beliefs' (even though many hasten to add they do not share his beliefs - they stop short of criticizing him for wishing death on a human being, chalking that up to their own 'religious tolerance').

Contrast Stevens' lot with Rushdie's. This guy, for decades, has gotten nothing more than the most tepid of lip service from his peers by way of support. How tempting it must have been for him over the years to give in and denounce his book, and live in the sun unafraid of reprisal! But instead, he has done his best to stand by his beliefs, bearing the burden that comes with that.

THAT is courage. That is standing by one's principles. That is living one's belief in the right to free expression. That is walking the walk. We KNOW what Rushdie believes. What Stone is doing is merely expedient marketing, propping up his image and keeping the Oliver Stone brand before the public.

Does Stone hate America? Not necessarily. We cannot know for certain what Stone believes by his actions, since his actions bear no negative consequences for him. If Stone LEFT America, where he is obviously well-ensconsed and comfortable, that would have a good deal of import. But he does not. He has carved out quite a nice niche for himself by posing as an exposer of truth. But those who truly walk that walk, like Rushdie, are likely to suffer for it in ways that Stone never has.

Stone 'hates' America in pretty much the same way a hooker 'loves' her client. And for pretty much the same reasons, as well.

In a fight, I'd want Rushdie to have my back. I would not turn my back on a lefty, though. They'll eat their young the moment their tummy rumbles.

You chucklehead. Do you know the definition of "liberal"? Doubtful. You use the word with no concept of its meaning. You think the founding fathers were conservatives?

Relax man. You need to take a vallium.

I use the word "liberal" as it is used in the current vernacular - so does everyone on this board and in the media. The debate you bring up has been asked and answered over and over again. But I will remind everyone...

The old use of the word which had to do with concepts of individual liberty, the rule of law, and capitalism is dead. The new use of the word is equated with using the government to promote social programs.

Yes, the founders were classical liberals. Today's "conservatives" are liberals in the sense that they want to "conserve" the ideas of the founders: ideas such as personal liberty, capitalism, etc... Today's liberals are liberals in the sense that they want to go down a new path apart from the ideas of the founders.

Today's successful leftist will be the one who is able to adopt Orwellian tactics; i.e., by changing the meaning of what the founders meant by their classical liberalism. For example, if you can convince Americans that having government health care is part of what it means to have personal liberty in the way that the founders intended then you will be successful at implementing government health care. If people can be convinced that liberty can only be obtained through economic equality, then communism has a chance in America...

I pulled the following sentiment from the comments of one of this board's progressive members: "You should thank your lucky stars that the majority (us) permits the minority (you) to live in freedom for if the shoe were on the other foot (you in the majority) sadly enough you dishonor this country enough to rail against its basic freedoms...

"Permits the minority to live freedom..." WOW, this from the man who constantly uses nazi images. This sentiment is genuinely chilling. Thanks for the window in that narrow little mind of yours, HD. It's obvious who the real nazi is.

OK, but your explanation leaves me wondering--for the "hate-America" position to be de rigueur in Stone's circles, don't there have to be some actual haters pushing it? Or do you really think that's it's all a pretense for every single one of them?

"Moore in contrast checks and double checks his facts (for example, he put out there a $10,000 reward for any factual inaccuracy in Fahrenheit 9/11, which only one was ever found...."

Sorry but you need to understand the term "marshaling the facts".

Do you think that when a witness is asked to promise "to tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth" this is just another example of lawyers’ pleonasms?

Have you not read any reviews of Moore's work? Do you, in your wildest dreams think that he told the truth about the medical situation in Cuba? Do you think that the hospital he shows is open to all Cubans? Did he mention that Canadian Medicine consists of an equal right to wait on line & that for any Canadian with money, medical care means a hospital in the US?

Your idea of truth is that no one could prove that any of the events he filmed didn’t happen? Sorry, but you have been duped; Moore’s not telling the whole truth.

Let me spell it out in basic terms. If a blogmaster/mistress on one of those blogs who determines which responses he/she prints, refused to publish any submissions favorable to you & published all those which were critical, then such blogmaster/mistress could, like Moore, safely offer a $10,000 reward for anyone who could prove that the critical anti-Eli submissions printed were not real. You would, I suggest, think that you had been wronged.

You & others who laughed at your "ranking" of troop support are now exchanging salmon recipes.

That's nice & I'm sure that you are a patriotic American, but your ranking which shows Republicans getting lower marks than Democrats in supporting the troops is, I suggest, counter-intuitive. Perhaps you could share its methodology with those of us who won't take it at face value.

You say (in two submissions, no less) that anyone who criticizes someone (here the silly Oliver Stone) who sees a moral equivalence between George Bush & Ahmadinejad is “abandoning constitutional safeguards for freedom… [&] has a very feeble dedication to the rule of law… [and belongs] in the Cheney camp, where defense of habeas corpus and presumed innocence means ‘terrorist supporter’ ” and QED such person “hates America.”

Inwood, can you use the Google? All the info you need to find the group and its ranking report from Oct. 2006 is in the post I made. But you knew that, you silly goofball! I don't know how you keep a straight face when you do that huffy thing you do.

"AlphaLiberal said...I think Ann Althouse hates America because she won't stand up and defend our legal traditions that have kept this nation free, such as presumed innocence, habeas corpus and the like."

Instead of calling names, one should be prepared to explain one's remarks. It's not incumbent on me to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Saying "can I use the Google" (is that a translation from the German?) is not explaining what you think you mean or why you think that a report is justification for an obvious counter-intuitive conclusion.

AlphaLiberal said..."And, Ann Althouse, UW Law Professor, by abandoning constitutional safeguards for freedom makes it very clear that she has a very feeble dedication to the rule of law."

It's pretty damned funny when a wo/man of the left - which has for the most part spent decades showing dedication to obliterating or at least minimalizing the constitution's primary safeguard for freedom, viz. federalism, and aggrandizing federal power - starts hurling accusations like that. It's even funnier (and more ironic) when the charge is hurled at a liberal who has done as much or more than any other liberal scholar who springs to mind to defend that constitutional safeguard against the encroachments you and your fellow-travelers urge.

Simon, I was referring to Althouse's embrace of the "liberals hate America" theme.

And, the liberals she so derides are defending America's highest ideals like continuing habeas corpus (until very recently), presumed innocence, justice before the law, freedom of speech.

Ann favors and highlights the statement: "...that no matter how much the Left fights for terrorist's precious civil rights and seek[s] to undermine and demoralize the US military, at the end of the day, Lefties are part of the enemy."

I concur with hdhouse who calls this type of thing insulting. (The insulted tend to be pissed, excoooose me!)

Inwood, how can I resist your goofball antics? But no, I can't do anything more to explain your intuitions to you. They're your intuitions, and part of what makes you so dear.

If you want to assess the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America report, you will have to read it. While your intuition is terribly subjective, the voting records of elected officials are not. The report takes a number of bills that would benefit active and former troops from the Iraq and Afghan wars, and tracks how legislators voted on them. That's pretty simple. Perhaps your intuition about how those votes break down along party lines is wrong, influenced by false assumptions. Perhaps you'll find support for your intuition as you peruse the bills they used to assess the voting records. It's all there on the IAVA website, for your convenience.

AlphaLiberal said..."Simon, I was referring to Althouse's embrace of the "liberals hate America" theme."

Given that she's a liberal, I doubt Ann "embrace[s]" the "'liberals hate America' theme" - and you'll note that the comment you're pushing back again focuses on Stone, not liberals generally. What you're offended by isn't anything Ann said but what you're inferring from what she said, primarily based on your own prejudices.

So if liberals are defending those things, who's attacking them? Not conservatives. Habeas corpus continues to be available for American citizens and persons in America, exactly the same as its traditionally-understood reach. What you mean by "continuing" is "expanding" - it has never been the case that PoWs can file for the writ, still less PoWs held beyond American shores. Presumption of innocence? Like you presumed Monica Goodling was innocent? Like y'all presume Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were innocent? The left had these people tried, convicted and crucified before there was the hint of a legal proceding. Presumption of innocence like your nutjob fellow-columnists who believe (without a shred of credible evidence) that the Bush administration commtted high treason and mass slaughter by planning and executing 9/11? Please. Freedom of speech? This from the party that wants to resurrect the "fairness doctrine"? Farcical.

Cyrus Pinkerton said..."Why don't we just agree that Ann got this one wrong and move on?"

Liberal debate playbook, play #12: concede that the subject is important and the debate divisive, then demand one's original position prevail. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 866-7 (1992) ("[we] call[] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution"); Barack Obama on the culture wars. It's a drab variation on a classic third quarter play by Cyrus!

As far as I know, Beth has not produced a report. Rather, she referred you to the IAVA website (http://www.iava.org) which might be a good starting place if you want to learn more about the organization. If you instead prefer to remain ignorant, you need do nothing.

"It's pretty clear that guy was kicking the right person in the b***s. Hope he (the cabbie?) gets well soon."

Question. In interpreting whether "a person is innocent 'til proven guilty", who is a mere cabdriver & who are you to determine that this man was no longer entitled to such basic freedom which you feel Chaney & Althouse would trash?

Shouldn't, according to your logic, this man have been ministered to, not harmed, until some authority recognized by you declared him guilty?

Glad to see that maybe in certain situations you concede that, in Justice Jackson’s mot “The Constitution (here English or Scottish Law) is not a suicide pact.”

If you like, you can defend Ann's claim that Oliver Stone hates America. I suggest you provide some evidence if you intend to mount a defense. On the other hand, if you could defend this claim, you probably would have already done so. And as far as I can tell, your last two posts are merely an attempt to provide cover by distraction.

Please Simon, if you aren't going to try to make a case that Oliver Stone hates America, don't waste my time by responding to this with more irrelevant garbage. If your only interest is in taking cheap shots at liberals, find someone else to direct your comments to.

"I doubt Ann "embrace[s]" the "'liberals hate America' theme" - and you'll note that the comment you're pushing back again focuses on Stone, not liberals generally."

This claim fails under the text I quoted from Althouse, in the same post you're supposedly rebutting. See above.

"So if liberals are defending those things, who's attacking them?" Bush Command, Republicans and other conservatives.habeas corpus - They have removed it for those in Gitmo and elsewhere. They tried to withhold it for at least 1 American citizen, Jose Padilla.

Presumed innocent - Give me a fricken break. You guys assume all in Gitmo are guilty (even though innocents have already been released). In Abu Ghraib were many innocents, but con's say they're all terrorists. You guys presume anyone accused of being a terrorist is, which makes it okay to kidnap, kill, torture or maim them. Oops, some are innocent.

As I understand it, Beth was citing, not endorsing, the IAVA report. Moreover, I have no idea why you continue to refer to the report as "bogus" when it is obvious that you haven't read it. Clearly you have chosen to remain ignorant about this topic, so why do you insist on continuing to discuss it?

As far as your claim that Beth is wrong about something, why don't you clearly define what you believe she has wrong? However, if you made your claim that "Beth got this one wrong" just to impress me with your parroting skills, let me know and I'll be happy to throw you a cracker when you stop squawking.

AlphaLiberal said..."This claim fails under the text I quoted from Althouse, in the same post you're supposedly rebutting."

You haven't quoted Ann - you quoted Cedarford. To be sure, Ann quoted that text and referred to it as the "[b]est response" in the thread, presumably either the best response (whatever that means in this context - I might refer to Justice Souter's dissent as the "best response" to the majority in Bush v. Gore, but that certainly doesn't mean I agree with it) to "the implication that Stone 'hates' America" specifically, or the "left-vs.-right back and forth" generally. In all, you're left quoting something that Ann didn't write, and making assumptions about her purposes in quoting it - assumptions that are animated by your hostility to her more than any textual exegesis. Which is exactly what I observed you were doing in my 6:09 PM comment, so we've come full circle! :p

"habeas corpus - They have removed it for those in Gitmo and elsewhere."

You can't "remove" something that was never present. "[T]hose in Gitmo and elsewhere" - that is, beyond American shores - never had the right to file a habeas petition in federal court, and if they did, you'd have thought that some enterprising Justice, judge or Kosmonaut would have dug up a case to cite where an enemy PoW held beyond American soil was granted it.

"They tried to withhold it for at least 1 American citizen, Jose Padilla."

“YOU GUYS PRESUME ANYONE ACCUSED OF BEING A TERRORIST IS, WHICH MAKES IT OKAY TO KIDNAP, KILL, TORTURE OR MAIM THEM.”

But you haven’t answered my question:

“In interpreting whether ‘a person is innocent 'til proven guilty’, who is a mere cabdriver & who are you to determine that this man was no longer entitled to such basic freedom which you feel Cheney (whose name I misspelled) & Althouse would trash?”

Question too deep for you? OK, come on, tell us why you think it was OK for the cabbie to kick the doctor, a doctor, in the b***s. Oh, I get it. You’re a Liberal & Liberals always observe civil rights &, QED, if you say it’s OK civil-rights-wise to kick this doctor’s b***s, it’s OK civil-rights-wise, because you, a Liberal, unlike Cheney & Althouse, say so.

CLEARLY [I] HAVE CHOSEN TO REMAIN IGNORANT ABOUT THIS TOPIC [PRO-TROOP LEGISLATION]

which misrepresentation allows you to pretend that you have the right to ask

WHY [I] INSIST ON CONTINUING TO DISCUSS IT?

But, of course, if you rely on bogus reports like Beth does, it’s you who has chosen to remain ignorant. (Oh, she was citing it for fun according to you & not relying on it.) I’ve followed Republican voting records as well as Democrat ones. And you obviously are so anxious to defend a fellow Lib that you don’t even know what she said, or regurgitated. It was that,

according to a survey done by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America in late 2006, Dems have A and B ratings in pro-troop legislation votes over the past 5 years & Repubs have Cs, Ds and Fs.

You see, I know that this is a bogus conclusion. Counter-factual & counter-intuitive. And that therefore it can’t be proven by a bogus report which obviously defines “pro-troup” to suit its purposes. And so I don’t have to eat the whole apple to know that it is rotten.

But I’ve now read Beth’s attempt at a summary & even she seems to be apologetic about its methodology. Maybe that’s why you think that she wasn’t “endorsing” it. Coudda fooled me.

And she still won’t answer my question:

“Why do I feel that she'd have a hissy fit if anyone tried to sneak a bogus ‘Republicans represent America’ report past her?”

And why do I know that you, Cyrus, would have the same hissy fit & would look down zee nez at such report & that neither you nor Beth would read such report?

And you think that my parroting your silly statement is silly. By definition, you’re right.

Cyrus Pinkerton said... According to the FAQ at the Yusef Islam website, Yusef Islam denies ever calling for the death of Salman Rushdie. [...] It's hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone who can't get simple facts straight.

Look, I'm sure Mr. Islam truly sees himself as a gentle seeker of God's peace. But he is just another tragic victim of extremism (which has, of course, political as well as religious variants, and yes, I do mean on both the left and the right). It's a goddamn shame that adherants of a malformed ideology that issues calls for repugnant actions can surrender to such calls out of a misplaced sense of duty, a ridiculous over-valuing of fairy tales at the expense of plain human decency.

And don't bother with the lame equivalency gambit of trying to turn that around and point it at Bush's war in Iraq. There was nothing decent about overlooking Saddam Hussein's mass graves, or the US turning its back on the Kurds after the first Desert war.

And while we're at it, there's nothing decent about smugly winking at religious rage against the West and Western values. It's not decent when Christian nutbags threaten and kill abortionists, and it's not decent when Islamic nutbags threaten and kill artists.

Oh, and it's not really decent, either, when Western artists try to draw nonexistent parallels between hardline regimes that practice extreme censorship, and the United States' whatever-you-want, whenever-you-want-it marketplace of ideas.

I quoted Cedarford because it's important for us to realize that from Ahmadinejad's perspective, Americans who are harshly critical of the government are PART OF America. Criticizing the govt is part of what we are. It can't get you in good with them. It's all one big bundle and you're in whether you like it or not.

Hoosier Daddy said... "You mean like when you said You should thank your lucky stars that the majority (us) permits the minority (you) to live in freedom Your own statement is more 3rd 'Reichish' than anything rebel said"

Oh Hoosier go stand in the corn fields for a while and cool off.

No one remembers the Ferris Buellar restaurant scene?

If you GOP types don't stop hiking up your pants and giving yourselves wedgies you are gonna be in big trouble.

I quoted Cedarford because it's important for us to realize that from Ahmadinejad's perspective, Americans who are harshly critical of the government are PART OF America.

Well, to be fair Ann, you didn't just quote Cedarford, you identified his comment as "best response." What did you find exceptional about the Cedarford remark you quoted? Cedarford prefaced his comment with

(a) the usual rightwing gibberish about "[the Left] seek[ing] to undermine and demoralize the US military," and(b) an idiotic claim that "the Left fights for terrorist's [sic] precious civil rights."

He then followed that garbage with a simple restatement of the second sentence from your blog entry (i.e., "... [the] opposition in the U.S. is a part of the Great Satan").

No offense Ann, but your rating of Cedarford's remark as "best response" should forever disqualify you from grading student papers.

None of what you've written addresses the claim that Yusuf Islam "continues to stump for the assassination of Salmon [sic] Rushdie." I know of no evidence to support that claim. In fact, what little evidence I have seen suggests otherwise.

Actually I haven't missed the point at all. I've invited you (and others) several times now to defend Ann's claim that Oliver Stone hates America. Not surprisingly, no one has taken up the challenge.

Because I've watched you consistently sidestep in our exchanges over the course of many different blog entries, I expected nothing different here. That is specifically why I made the following request in my previous comment to you:

Please Simon, if you aren't going to try to make a case that Oliver Stone hates America, don't waste my time by responding to this with more irrelevant garbage.

So, if you will, please limit anything you address to me to a substantive discussion of Oliver Stone's "hatred" of America. I have no interest in reading your thoughts on the "liberal debate playbook," or any other such fantasies of yours.

Let's be clear about this: please continue to comment freely, but please don't address your comments to me unless you have reason to believe that I would have interest in what you have to say. Since I try to reply to anyone who addresses a comment to me, I don't want to feel an obligation to respond to nonsense from people who are intelligent enough to know better.

It's really stupid to keep saying that I asserted that "Oliver Stone hates America." Reread the post. I riffed on the idea that he seemed to imagine that he was antagonistic enough toward America that Ahmadinejad would like him. That was laughably wrong. And I'm obviously saying that part of what America is has to do with the inclusion of its critics. So quit twisting it. It's getting annoying, Cyrus, and making you look dishonest.

Aw, poor Stone! How much do you have to hate the United States to get Ahmadinejad to like you? Much more than Stone thought, apparently.

This clearly implies that you believe Stone hates America. In fairness to you, I gave you an early chance to correct this view. I asked "Are you suggesting that Oliver Stone hates the United States?" You replied, in part, this way:

I think he hates what it is to some degree, but that in his own view, he probably feels he loves it more than people who merely love it as it is.

Having been given the opportunity early on to clarify this point, you made it clear that you believe Stone hates "what [America] is." (Forgive me, but I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction to be found between "America" and "what America is.")

I have no doubt that you have a more refined opinion than you have stated so far. Feel free to share it, or accept being judged by what you've actually written.

Now, I've read your assertion, given you multiple opportunities to clarify it, and hold you to account for what you've expressed. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there is no dishonesty in my reading of what you've written.

However, speaking of dishonesty (intellectual dishonesty, that is), it is laughable that you pretend to know why Ahmadinejad refused to cooperate with a Stone documentary. I suspect Ahmadinejad would have been willing to cooperate if, in his opinion, it had served his interests. For whatever reasons, he decided it did not. It seems unlikely though that the statement on which you are "riffing" has much value beyond whatever propaganda boost Ahmadinejad gets from it in Iran.

Incidentally, how does the following news item from the Guardian square with your theory about Ahmadinejad's view of Stone?

Mr Ahmadinejad's adviser, Javan Shamghadri, said Stone's request might be reconsidered if he could secure the rights for Iranian film-makers to make a documentary about the US president, George Bush, and the CIA without harassment.

If, as you indicated, you don't know anything about the IAVA and you haven't read the IAVA report, I don't know on what basis you pretend to know about the organization and know the content of the report. Do I think you're missing something? Yeah, I do, but it isn't what you imagine.

I know that this is late comment, but one of the bloggers here in the UAE has information that it was Stone who turned down the project and that Ahmadinejad's comment wasn't made until after Stone had declined to work on the project.